the possibility that my favourite amusement, while it changes in feature, should deteriorate in character.
I conceive, then, that all the fine style of hitting, which the reader will find recorded in the latter part of this little work, must in a very material degree cease, if the modern innovation of throwing, instead of bowling the ball, be not discontinued. It is not the least important objection I have to offer against the system to say, that it reduces the strikers too much to an equality; since the indifferent batsman possesses as fair a chance of success as the most refined player; and the reason of this is obvious, because, from the random manner of delivering the ball, it is impossible for the fine batsman to have time for that finesse and delicate management, which so peculiarly distinguished the elegant manoeuvring of the chief players who occupied the field about eight, ten, and more years ago. If the system continue, I freely confess that I cannot even hope again to witness such exquisite finish as distinguished the playing of such men as Old Small, and Aylward, and the Two Walkers, and Beldham, and Lord Frederick Beauclerc: the last indeed, I believe it is pretty well understood, retired as soon as the present system was tolerated.
I am aware that the defence which has been urged in behalf of the throwing, is, that 'it tends to shorten the game'; that now a match is commonly decided in one day which heretofore occupied three times the space in its completion. This argument, I grant, is not an irrational one; but if the object in countenancing the innovation (and one, be it observed, in direct defiance of a standing law) extend solely to the 'curtailment of the game' why not multiply the difficulties in another direction? Why not give more room for the display of skill in the batter?
